Baron 1990
Baron 1990
Article information:
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:486125 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
134
to job applicants (Baron, 1987; Williams & Keating, 1987), as well as to influence managers' choice of strategies for dealing with poor performance by subordinates (Dobbins & Russell, 1986). Positive affect, as additional findings suggest, enhances prosocial organizational behaviors (e.g., Organ, 1988; Puffer,
1987), plays a role in leader-member relations (Wakabayashi, Graen, Graen, &
Graen, 1988), and even reduces voluntary turnover (George, 1989).
The present study was designed to extend this previous work by examining
the potential impact of positive affect on another important process: organizational conflict (Blake & Mouton, 1984; Thomas, in press). Two lines of evidence
suggest that positive affect may indeed be relevant to this important and often
costly process. First, a number of studies focused on human aggression indicate
that exposure to stimuli or events designed to induce positive affect may lower
both anger and overt hostility among persons who have previously been provoked (Baron, 1977, 1983). Since feelings of anger and resentment play an
important role in many instances of organizational conflict (Thomas, in press),
it seems possible that reducing such feelings might be a useful step toward the
effective management of many conflicts. Evidence that this is indeed the case is
provided by the results of a previous study (Baron, 1984). In this investigation,
individuals exposed to procedures designed to induce positive affect (e.g., exposure to humorous cartoons, receipt of a small gift) expressed weaker tendencies
than subjects not exposed to these affect-induction treatments to handle future
conflicts through avoidance, and stronger tendencies than control subjects to
handle such conflicts through collaboration.
Second, a study by Carnevale and Isen (1986) indicates that positive affect
(also induced through a small gift and exposure to humorous materials) can
increase cooperativeness and reduce the frequency of contentious tactics during
face-to-face negotiations. Since negotiations are a very common procedure for
resolving conflicts in organizational settings, these results provide support for
the suggestion that the induction of positive affect may prove helpful in reducing
the intensity or frequency of at least some forms of organizational conflict.
The present research sought to extend these previous findings in several
ways. First, it examined the impact of two additional means of inducing positive
affect among the parties to a conflict: self-deprecation (mildly unfavorable
statements about one's own abilities or characteristics), and flattery (positive
statements about the target's abilities or attributes). Both of these procedures
are frequently used by individuals seeking to enhance their own attractiveness to
others (cf., Liden & Mitchell, 1988), and both have been found, in recent
research, to be quite effective in inducing liking and other positive affective
reactions among recipients (Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986).
A second important feature of the present research involved the nature of
the procedures used for inducing positive affect among subjects. In previous
research, these procedures were performed prior to the occurrence of face-toface negotiations (cf., Carnevale & Isen, 1986). In this study, in contrast, such
procedures took place during face-to-face negotiations. It seemed possible that
R. A. BARON ET AL.
135
presented in this manner, they might be somewhat less obtrusive, and so perhaps more useful in actual conflict situations.
Finally, the present investigation also examined the potential effects on
negotiations and conflict of another tactic sometimes used in face-to-face
encounters: extreme (excessive) flattery. It was reasoned that this tactic would
be recognized by subjects as insincere and, as a result, would induce negative
rather than positive affect among them. To the extent this was the case, excessive flattery might "backfire" and intensify rather than reduce ongoing conflicts.
Some support for this reasoning is provided by the finding that negotiators react
negatively to signs of insincerity on the part of their opponents (Baron, 1988a;
Lewicki & Litterer, 1985). In accordance with the reasoning summarized above,
and the results of previous research (e.g., Baron, 1984; Carnevale & Isen, 1986),
it was predicted that subjects exposed to conditions that caused them to experience positive affect would (1) adopt a more conciliatory approach to negotiations (e.g., make more and larger concessions to their opponent), (2) rate their
opponent more favorably, and (3) report stronger preferences for resolving
future conflicts with this person through collaboration or compromise, and
weaker tendencies for resolving future conflicts through avoidance or competition.
In order to investigate these and related hypotheses, two studies were conducted. In the first, male and female subjects were provoked or not provoked by
a same-sex accomplice. Then, they participated in face-to-face negotiations with
this person. During negotiations, the accomplice (subjects' opponent) either
engaged or did not engage in actions designed to induce positive affect among
subjects. (The accomplice offered them a small gift, engaged in self-deprecation
or flattery, or performed none of these activities). In an additional group, the
accomplice engaged in excessive flattery.
Following completion of the negotiations, subjects rated the accomplice
on several personal dimensions and reported on their reactions to his or her
behavior. Finally, they rated the likelihood of using each of five different strategies for resolving future conflicts (avoidance, competition, compromise, collaboration, accommodation; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, in press).
In a follow-up investigation, the timing of the accomplice's affect-inducing
behaviors was varied. For one group these took place prior to the start of the
negotiations. For a second group, they occurred during the negotiations. Finally,
for a third, they occurred after the negotiations had been completed. Since mild
increments in positive affect are relatively short-lived in nature, it was reasoned
that such shifts would be more successful in reducing anger and hostility when
they followed the arousal of these negative feelings. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the impact of positive affect would be greater when it was induced
during or after the negotiations than when it was induced prior to their start.
136
STUDY I
Method
Subjects. Seventy-eight undergraduates (thirty-eight males, forty females)
participated in the study. Subjects took part in the investigation in order to satisfy a course requirement.
Design. A 2 X 2 x 5 factorial design based on sex of subject, two levels of
provocation (unprovoked, provoked), and five treatment conditions (control,
gift, self-deprecation, flattery, excessive flattery) was employed. Subjects were
randomly assigned to one of the cells of this design as they appeared for their
appointments.
Procedure
Provocation. Procedures employed for the purpose of provoking or not
provoking subjects were highly similar to those used in a previous study (Baron,
1984). Briefly, subjects were asked to discuss a business-related problem with
another person (a same-sex accomplice). During these discussions, they were to
present their own views and to indicate why they agreed or disagreed with those
expressed by the other subject. The accomplice always adopted a position
opposed to the one endorsed by subjects. However, the manner in which the
accomplice expressed such disagreement differed sharply in the two conditions.
In the unprovoked condition, the accomplice expressed disagreement with the
subject's views in a calm and reasonable manner. For example, he or she made
such remarks as "I can see why you feel that way, but I guess I disagree..." In
the provoked condition, in contrast, the accomplice disagreed in an arrogant and
condescending fashion. For example, he or she made such commentsas: "Oh
come on, you've got to be kidding!" These procedures have previously been
found to be successful in inducing different levels of annoyance or anger among
subjects (Baron, 1984). The issue discussed by subjects and accomplice involved
the question of whether a company should move its operations to the "Sunbelt."
Negotiation Situation and Affect-Induction Procedures. The negotiation
phase, too, was based on procedures used in several previous studies (Baron,
1988a, b). The subject and the accomplice (the same individual who previously
provoked or did not provoke them) were asked to imagine that they were executives in a large company and that they represented the Marketing and Production Departments, respectively. They were asked to negotiate about two issues:
how $1,000,000 in surplus funds in the budget for equipment and supplies
should be divided between their departments, and how twenty position cuts
necessitated by a reduction in the budget for personnel should be allocated to
their respective units. An exchange of ten offers and counter-offers then followed. The accomplice began by requesting $750,000 and indicating a willingness to accept only six of the twenty cuts. He or she then made three small
monetary concessions of $50,000 each and three concessions in position cuts on
R. A. BARON ET AL.
137
trials 3, 5, and 8. (The accomplice's final offer, then, was $650,000 and 9 position
cuts, respectively.)
Procedures for inducing positive affect among subjects occurred on trials 2
and 6, and were as follows. In the gift condition, the accomplice took out a
package of cherry Life-Savers and offered one to the subject before stating his
or her position. In the self-deprecation condition the accomplice made mildly
self-disparaging remarks (e.g., this person noted that he or she had no experience in making such decisions, and commented unfavorably on his or her own
tendency to be somewhat rigid). In the flattery condition, in contrast, the
accomplice complimented the subject for doing a good job in representing his
or her department, and for being persuasive. Finally, in the excessive flattery
condition, the accomplice was much more effusive in his or her praise. For
example, he or she remarked: "Gee, my opponent makes a lot of sensehe
(she) is one of the sharpest people I've met recently...I like the way he (she)
puts things..." The comments employed in the self-deprecation, flattery, and
excessive flattery conditions were chosen on the basis of pilot research. This
preliminary research indicated that they were effective in inducing the expected
reactions among subjects, and also as sounding natural and unrehearsed to
subjects. (In the control condition, the negotiations proceeded without any
efforts to influence participants' affective state.)
Dependent measures for the negotiations included subjects' initial and
final offers to the accomplice (with respect both to division of the $1,000,000
and position cuts), the number of concessions made by subjects during the
negotiations, and the total magnitude of such concessions.
Additional Dependent Measures. Following completion of the negotiations,
subjects completed a questionnaire designed to yield information on their reactions to the accomplice, their affective states during the study, and their preferred modes of resolving future conflicts with the accomplice. Various items on
this questionnaire asked subjects to rate the accomplice on several personal
traits (e.g., unreasonable-reasonable; unfair-fair; unpleasant-pleasant;
unfriendly-friendly), and to rate their own feelings during the study on five
dimensions (tense-calm, bad-good, irritated-pleased, negative-positive,
unhappy-happy). Additional items (which served partly as manipulation checks)
asked participants to rate the extent to which the accomplice had tried to get as
much as possible for his or her own department, had tried to put them in a good
mood so that they would make concessions, had tried to build an image of
"toughness," had flattered them, or had engaged in self-deprecation.
A final set of items assessed subjects' preferences for five different modes
(styles) of resolving future conflicts: avoidance, accommodation, competition,
compromise, and collaboration. These five patterns have been identified by
Rahim (1983) and Thomas (in press) as basic modes of behavior in many conflict situations. The items used to assess subjects' preferences for each of these
strategies were identical to ones used in several previous studies (e.g., Baron,
1988a,b). They have been found to correlate positively with appropriate scales
138
RESULTS
Effectiveness of the Experimental Manipulations
Several items were included in the study to assess the effectiveness of the
experimental procedures. These pertained primarily to success of the various
affect-induction procedures, the impact of provocation, and the effects of
flattery.
Subjects' Reported Affective States. The five items designed to measure
subjects' affective states correlated highly (average r = .78). Thus, they were
summed to provide a single measure of affective reactions. An analysis of variance performed on these data revealed only an interaction between provocation
and affect-induction condition, F(4,60) = 3.18, p < .05. Examination of the
appropriate means indicated that this interaction stemmed from the fact that in
the unprovoked condition, subjects in the excessive flattery condition reported
higher levels of negative affect (M = 23.75) than those in the flattery (M =
28.90) and gift (M = 29.05) conditions (p < .05). In the provoked condition,
however, none of the differences between the various groups were significant.
(All were more negative than the corresponding values in the unprovoked
condition.)
Provocation. Evidence for the effectiveness of the provocation manipulation is provided by two findings. First, subjects rated the accomplice as less
friendly in the provoked (M = 5.23) than in the unprovoked condition (M =
5.85), F(l,58) = 5.38, p < .025. Second, subjects in the provoked condition
reported perceiving the accomplice as trying to build an image of being tough to
a greater degree in the provoked (M = 3.77) than in the unprovoked condition
(M = 2.69),F(1,58) = 10.19, p < .002.
R. A. BARON ET AL.
139
Gift
Flattery
SelfDeprecation
Excessive
Flattery
7.31
9.00.
8.75 .
8.63
10.27
a
bc
acd
bd
ac
Note: Means that do not share a common subscript differ significantly (p < .05).
Finally, the main effect for affect-induction condition was also significant
for the total number of concessions made by subjects with respect to position
cuts, F(4,58) = 2.74, p < .05. This effect stemmed from the fact that subjects in
the self-deprecation condition made a larger number of concessions than those
in the other groups (p < .05). None of the other differences between the groups
were significant. Since subjects in the self-deprecation group also expected the
140
accomplice to accept more cuts, this finding suggests that they anticipated
reciprocity on the part of this individual.
Preferences for Modes of Resolving Future Conflict
Analyses of variance were performed on the data for the items that
assessed subjects' preferences for resolving future conflicts in each of five different ways: through avoidance, competition, accommodation, collaboration, or
compromise. These analyses yielded a significant main effect of provocation for
avoidance, F(4,58) = 9.82, p < .005. As noted previously, this finding stemmed
from the fact that subjects in the provoked condition reported a stronger preference for avoidance than subjects in the unprovoked condition.
The analysis for collaboration yielded a significant interaction between
affect-induction condition and sex, F(4,58) = 3.03, p < .025. As shown in Table
2, this interaction reflected the fact that among males (but not females), subjects in the gift, flattery, and self-deprecation conditions reported a stronger
preference for collaboration than those in the control group (p < .05). However, subjects in the excessive flattery condition did not express a stronger preference for collaboration than those in the control group.
Table 2
Mean Preference for Collaboration as a Function of Sex of
Subjects and Affect-Induction Condition
Affect-Induction Condition
Sex
Control
Gift
Flattery
Deprecation
Flattery
Males
4.88a
6.43.
5.64
6.25
6.14
bc
bc
ac
bc
Females
6.50
5.75
5.88
6.38
5.75
a
a
a
a
a
Note: For each sex, means that do not share a common subscript differ significantly (p <
.05).
The interaction between sex and provocation was significant for the item
dealing with compromise, F(l,58) = 3.85, p < .05. This reflected the fact that
males reported a significantly stronger tendency to compromise with the
accomplice in the provoked than in the unprovoked condition. Among females,
however, the opposite pattern prevailed.
Finally, the main effect for affect-induction condition closely approached
significance for competition, F(4,58) = 2.28, p < .07. As shown in Table 3, this
effect stemmed from the fact that subjects in the flattery condition reported a
significantly weaker preference for competition than those in the control, excessive flattery, and self-deprecation groups (p < .05). No other differences
between the means were significant.
R. A. BARON ET AL.
141
Table 3
Mean Preference for Competition as a Function of
Affect-Induction Condition
Control
Gift
Flattery
SelfDeprecation
Excessive
Flattery
4.40
4.19a
4.31a
3.40
3.00
a
ac
bc
Note: Means that do not share a common subscript differ significantly (p < .05).
142
tive tactics of ingratiation (cf., Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986; Liden & Mitchell,
1988).
Findings with respect to behavior during negotiations provide additional
support for the potentially beneficial effects of positive affect on conflict. Subjects in the self-deprecation condition offered a larger number of concessions to
the accomplice than those in the control condition. Further, as expected, male
subjects who had previously been provoked, and thus induced to experience
negative affect, made smaller initial offers to the accomplice than those who
had not been provoked.
However, it was also found that subjects in the gift and self-deprecation
conditions made final offers to the accomplice suggesting that this person
accept a greater number of position cuts than subjects in the control condition.
At first glance, this finding might be interpreted as indicating that subjects in
these conditions, who experienced positive affect, actually adopted a more rigid
and unyielding stance during negotiations than subjects not exposed to procedures designed to induce positive affect. Another interpretation, however, is
that subjects in these groups were merely expressing their belief that the
accomplice would reciprocate their own concessions. Having made concessions
with respect to position cuts themselves (see above), they expected the accomplice to do likewise. Thus, the fact that subjects in these groups made final
offers requesting more position cuts by the accomplice may actually be more
indicative of a reciprocity-based approach to negotiations than of a relatively
confrontational stance. Additional evidence concerning this possibility can be
readily obtained in future studies through the inclusion of items designed to
assess subjects' motives for making concessions and their views concerning the
likelihood of reciprocity on the part of the accomplice (cf., Lewicki & Litterer,
1985).
Additional findings point to the tentative conclusion that the impact of
efforts to induce positive affect among opponents in conflict situations depends,
to an important extent, on the context of such endeavors. In the present
research, subjects reported the most negative reactions to the accomplice on
several dimensions when this person had previously provoked them and then
engaged in fairly obvious attempts at ingratiation (i.e., excessive flattery). Under
these conditions, subjects may well have viewed the accomplice's flattery as
insincere, and so reacted negatively to it. The results of previous studies indicate
that when individuals participating in negotiations view statements by their
opponent as insincere or inaccurate, they may respond quite negatively (cf.,
Baron, 1988a; Bies, Shapiro, & Cummings, 1988). Given such results, it seems
clear that efforts to induce positive affect among one's opponents will not
always succeed in reducing the intensity or persistence of ongoing conflict.
Rather, this will only be the case when the techniques employed for this purpose are perceived as sincere and reasonable in nature. When, instead, they are
viewed by recipients as attempts to manipulate or mislead them, these tactics
may backfire and actually intensify conflict. In sum, as noted recently by
R. A. BARON ET AL.
143
Thomas (in press), conflict can only be fully understood within an historical
context that takes account of existing and previous relationships between
participants.
One aspect of the present results deserving of comment is the fact that in
several instances, findings were stronger and more consistent for males than for
females. With respect to negotiations, males, but not females, made smaller initial offers to the accomplice in the provoked than in the unprovoked condition.
Turning to preferences for various conflict resolution modes, males, but not
females, expressed stronger preferences for collaboration in the gift, flattery,
and self-deprecation conditions than in the control group. Together, these
findings suggest that females and males may respond somewhat differently to
procedures designed to induce either positive or negative affect (cf., Isen, 1987).
For example, because of their prior social experience, females may be somewhat more suspicious of various tactics of ingratiation than males (Wortman &
Linsenmeier, 1977). To the extent this is indeed the case, such techniques would
be expected to induce weaker levels of positive affect among them, and so to
influence their subsequent negotiation and conflict-resolving behavior to a
smaller degree. Further research can obtain evidence on this possibility by
specifically comparing the reactions of females and males to a wide range of
affect-inducing procedures.
Similarly, past research suggests that females often approach situations
involving conflict (and several types of negotiations) in a more conciliatory
manner than males. Such tendencies, in turn, may restrict the range of beneficial effects that can potentially stem from the induction of positive affect. The
fact that female subjects in the control (no-affect induction) condition reported
stronger preferences for collaboration than male subjects in the control condition suggests that such gender differences may well have played a role in the
present research.
Taken together, the findings of this initial study are somewhat encouraging. They suggest that under appropriate circumstances, positive affect can
indeed yield beneficial effects from the perspective of reducing the intensity of
ongoing conflicts. The magnitude of such effects was relatively small, but they
occurred for several different dependent measures. One issue not addressed in
this research, however, involves the timing of affect-induction procedures. It
seems possible that the effectiveness of these procedures may vary as a function
of when they are introduced. For example, it may be preferable to present them
during ongoing negotiations rather than after their completion (cf., Baron,
1984). Further, it may be the case that various procedures for inducing positive
affect are differentially effective when introduced at various times (i.e., relatively early or late during negotiations or conflict episodes). To mention one
possibility, a small gift may be more successful in inducing positive affect when
introduced early in the process-perhaps even before the start of negotiations.
However, self-deprecating comments may be more effective when made during
144
145
laboratory by the experimenter who explained that the study was concerned
with negotiation as a problem solving tool in organizations. She further
explained that before taking part in the study, they would complete a warm-up
exercise. Participants were told that this exercise would help them to organize
their thoughts and express their views more clearly during the actual negotiation. To complete the warm-up exercise, subjects were instructed to write down
all the reasons they could think of for putting three new computer terminals in
each of the dormitories on campus. The accomplice was instructed to write
down all of the reasons he could think of for improving the appearance of the
campus. A folder with pictures of the artwork and sculptures on the campus was
given to the accomplice and a folder with pictures of the current computer
facilities and proposed dormitory computer labs was given to the subject. The
subject and the accomplice were told that the folders could be used to help
them generate their ideas. The experimenter further indicated that they would
have four minutes to write their ideas. At the end of that time, the experimenter
returned and exchanged the ideas written by the accomplice and subject. (In the
before condition, one of the two treatments-humor or flattery-was introduced at
this point; see below.)
The experimenter then described the negotiation task. Both individuals
were told that they should imagine that they were committee chairpersons at
the university. The subject would represent the computer science committee
and the accomplice the campus improvement committee. The participant and
the accomplice were then told to negotiate over the division of $1,000,000 in
funds. During these negotiations, the accomplice followed a prepared script
with respect to offers and the rationale behind these. On three occasions, he
made two small concessions. (In the during condition, one of the treatment conditions was introduced after the second of these concessions.)
After the negotiations were complete, subjects were asked to respond to a
brief questionnaire. (In the after condition, one of the two treatment conditions
was introduced at this time.)
Accomplice's Behavior
In order to generate conflict, the accomplice began the negotiation by
requesting fully $800,000 of the available funds. He then made only three small
concessions of $50,000 each during the session. The accomplice was specially
trained for this role. This training required that he memorize a number of
points which could, potentially, be used to defend his position. Thus, whatever
the subjects' view, the accomplice was well prepared to argue with it in a convincing manner. Because previous research indicates that the manner in which
disagreement is expressed can strongly influence affective reactions to such
opposition (Levinson, 1978), the accomplice was trained to behave in the same
manner in every session.
146
Treatment Conditions
For the humor condition the accomplice made two humorous comments
about two of the pictures of art and sculpture in the folder. The first of these
remarks was: "Look at this picture. You can't tell the bike rack from the artwork." The second comment was: "This picture is really bad; it looks like the
Jetsons' Christmas tree." Precisely the same humorous comments were made in
the before, during, and after conditions.
For the flattery condition, the accomplice first made a positive comment
concerning the subject's presentation skills during negotiation in the during and
after conditions. (A sample comment: "You really represent your committee
well. I especially agree with your point that..."). In the before condition, in contrast, this flattering remark was made about subjects' written proposal. (This
was necessary since no negotiations had as yet occurred.) In the control condition, the accomplice made no humorous or flattering comments before, during,
or after the negotiation.
Final Questionnaire
The final questionnaire (completed by subjects after the conclusion of
negotiations) was used to obtain the major dependent measures. The first four
items on this questionnaire asked subjects to rate their current mood along four
dimensions (angry-not angry, tense-not tense; not happy-happy, good-bad).
Several additional items allowed participants to indicate their impressions of the
accomplice. Specifically, they rated this person along the following dimensions:
fair-unfair; friendly-unfriendly, cooperative-uncooperative; and effectiveineffective.
The remaining six items were designed to assess subjects' preferences for
various modes of resolving future conflicts. On these items, they indicated how
likely they would be to avoid the accomplice, to collaborate, compromise, or
compete with him, or accommodate to his wishes (Rahim, 1983; Thomas, in
press). On the remaining item, subjects rated the extent to which they would
like to work with accomplice in the future. An overview of the procedures
employed in this study is presented in Figure 2.
RESULTS
Preferences for Modes of Resolving Future Conflicts
A multivariate analysis of variance was performed on the five items that
assessed subjects' preferences for resolving future conflicts (i.e., through avoidance, competition, accommodation, collaboration, or compromise). This analysis (which included all seven groups) yielded an effect for treatment condition
that closely approached significance, F(30,182) = 1.49, p = .05 by Wilks'
lambda. Follow-up univariate analyses indicated that this effect stemmed primarily from the item dealing with avoidance. Subjects in the no-treatment con-
R. A. BARON ET AL.
147
148
accomplice. Indeed, there is some indication that they produced the opposite
effect.
R. A. BARON ET AL.
149
150
In contrast, provision of a small gift may prove most effective when presented early in an interaction, or even before it begins. Informal observation
suggests such token gifts are frequently provided to opponents prior to the start
of negotiations rather than at their conclusion (cf., Lewicki & Litterer, 1985).
One reason for this may lie in the fact that gifts delivered later in the process
may be perceived as bribes rather than simple tokens of good will. To the extent
they are, negative rather than positive affective reactions, may well be produced.
Further research is clearly needed to establish the conditions under which gifts
are and are not effective in reducing subsequent conflict.
At this point, it should be noted that almost any technique employed to
induce positive affect among others (humor, mild flattery, gifts) can potentially
fail in this respect and induce opposite reactions instead. Humor, for example,
often contains a hostile, biting edge. When it does, the likelihood that it will
induce positive affect among recipients is minimal (Baron, 1978). And humor
that fails to amuse may induce irritation and annoyance rather than positive
feelings of amusement. Similarly, as noted in Study 1, flattery, when too
extreme, can be recognized as a sign of manipulative intent or as ingratiation,
and so generate negative rather than positive effects (cf., Liden & Mitchell,
1988). Clearly, then, efforts to reduce organizational conflict through the use of
affect-generating procedures include an element of risk, and potential users of
such techniques must weigh the likelihood of their success against the possible
costs that may result if they fail in their intended goals.
Before concluding, it should be noted that the present research was conducted under carefully controlled, but somewhat artificial, conditions. As a
result, the extent to which the obtained findings can be generalized to actual
conflict situations or negotiations with important implications for the participants, remains uncertain. A large body of previous research, much of it conducted under natural conditions (cf., Isen, 1987; Isen & Baron, in press) suggests that positive affect exerts robust effects on a wide range of behaviors
(helping, aggression) and several cognitive processes (e.g., memory, decision
making, relative preferences for risk or caution). In view of such findings, it
seems quite possible that the present results may well be generalizable to at
least some realistic conflict situations. However, it remains for further research
to determine the extent to which this is actually the case. For the present, then,
it is best to view the findings reported here as primarily suggestive in nature.
With these important restrictions in mind, it seems reasonable to offer the
following, tentative conclusion. Inducing positive affect among the parties to a
conflict may sometimes be a useful strategy. This may be so for the following
basic reason: previous research on cognitive processes and on the relationship
between affect and cognition suggests quite strongly that in the context of strong
emotions, individuals' abilities to process information effectively decreases (Isen
& Baron, in press). In short, as one old saying suggests, "When emotions run
high, reason often flies out the window." When it does, unfortunately, so, too,
may the chances of attaining integrative resolutions in many conflict situations
R. A. BARON ET AL.
151
(cf., Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). For this reason, efforts to induce positive affect
among participants in tense, potentially explosive conflict situations may well
prove worthwhile.
REFERENCES
Baron, R. A. (1977). Human aggression. New York: Plenum.
Baron, R. A. (1978). Aggression-inhibiting influence of sexual humor. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36, 189-197.
Baron, R. A. (1983). The control of human aggression: An optimistic overview. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 1, 97-199.
Baron, R. A. (1984). Reducing organizational conflict: An incompatible response approach.
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 69, 272-279.
Baron, R. A. (1987). Interviewer's moods and reactions to job applicants: The influence of affective states on applied social judgements.JournalofApplied Social Psychology, 17, 911-926.
Baron, R. A. (1988a). Attributions and organizational conflict: The mediating role of apparent
sincerity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 111-127.
Baron, R. A. (1988b). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy,
and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199-207.
Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing organizational conflict: Is it enough to say it's not my fault? Communication Research, 15, 381-399.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1984). Solving costly organizational conflicts. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Bodenhausen, G. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models of stereotype use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 726-737.
Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1986). Affect and appraisal accuracy: Liking as an integral
dimension in evaluating performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 71, 672-678.
Carnevale, P. J. D., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the
discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 37, 1-11.
Dobbins, G. H., & Russell, J. M. (1986). The biasing effects of subordinate likableness on leaders'
responses to poor performance: A laboratory and a field study. Personnel Psychology, 39,
759-777.
George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 317-324.
Godfrey, D. K., Jones, E. E., & Lord, C G. (1986). Self-promotion is not ingratiating. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 106-115.
Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 203-253). New York: Academic
Press.
Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (in press). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In B.
M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling
behavior The "MODE" instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 309325.
Levinson, H. (1978). The abrasive personality. Harvard Business Review, 56, 86-94.
Lewicki, R. J., & Litterer, J. A. (1985). Negotiation. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Liden, R. C, & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy
of Management Review, 13, 572-587.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Park, O. S., Sims, H. L., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Affect in organizations. In H. Sims & D. Gioia
(Eds.), The thinking organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict. New York: Random House.
Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance among
commission salespeople. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 72, 615-621.
152
16. Sonja Lyubomirsky, Laura King, Ed Diener. 2005. The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does
Happiness Lead to Success?. Psychological Bulletin 131:6, 803-855. [CrossRef]
17. Carsten K.W De Dreu, Gerben A Van Kleef. 2004. The influence of power on the information
search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
40:3, 303-319. [CrossRef]
18. Evert Van de Vliert, Xu Huang, Philip M. Parker. 2004. Do colder and hotter climates make richer
societies more, but poorer societies less, happy and altruistic?. Journal of Environmental Psychology
24:1, 17-30. [CrossRef]
19. Gerben A. Van Kleef, Carsten K. W. De Dreu, Antony S. R. Manstead. 2004. The Interpersonal
Effects of Emotions in Negotiations: A Motivated Information Processing Approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 87:4, 510-528. [CrossRef]
20. Gerben A. van Kleef, Carsten K. W. De Dreu, Antony S. R. Manstead. 2004. The Interpersonal
Effects of Anger and Happiness in Negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86:1,
57-76. [CrossRef]
21. Bianca BeersmaUniversity of Amsterdam Fieke HarinckLeiden University Maria J.J. GertsUniversity
of Amsterdam. 2003. BOUND IN HONOR: HOW HONOR VALUES AND INSULTS AFFECT
THE EXPERIENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF CONFLICTS. International Journal of Conflict
Management 14:2, 75-94. [Abstract] [PDF]
22. Carsten K.W De Dreu, Peter J CarnevaleMotivational Bases Of Information Processing and Strategy
in Conflict and Negotiation 235-291. [CrossRef]
23. Donald E. ConlonMichigan State University Courtney Shelton HuntNorthern Illinois
University. 2002. DEALING WITH FEELING: THE INFLUENCE OF OUTCOME
REPRESENTATIONS ON NEGOTIATION. International Journal of Conflict Management 13:1,
38-58. [Abstract] [PDF]
24. Tricia S. Jones, Andrea Bodtker. 2001. Mediating with Heart in Mind: Addressing Emotion in
Mediation Practice. Negotiation Journal 17:3, 207-244. [CrossRef]
25. Andrea M. BodtkerTemple University Jessica Katz JamesonNorth Carolina State University. 2001.
EMOTION IN CONFLICT FORMATION AND ITS TRANSFORMATION: APPLICATION
TO ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT. International Journal of Conflict
Management 12:3, 259-275. [Abstract] [PDF]
26. J.-A. Johannessen, J. Olaisen, B. Olsen. 1997. Information management in negotiations: The
conditions under which it could be expected that the negotiation partners substitute a competitive
definition of the situation for a cooperative one. International Journal of Information Management
17:3, 153-168. [CrossRef]
27. Steven M. SommerUniversity of Nebraska. 1995. SOCIAL COMPETITION: IDENTIFYING
NEW PERSPECTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR TASK MOTIVATION. International Journal
of Conflict Management 6:3, 239-256. [Abstract] [PDF]